Nope, what I am saying is, worrying about everyone on top of what my responsibilities are, is not my job in life. I will take care of myself and my family and my responsibilities to them and you are free to do the same thing for yours. If you can't, the nwhat the fuck are you having kids for in the first place?destruktion_6143 wrote:
so you say if someone is poor and was born into poverty, its their fault for not getting out of poverty? seriously man, you make it sound sooo easy. its not always a choice for people. if a boy is born into poverty, instead of schol he'll probably end up taking a min wage job to try and help the family. you think going to college to become "marketable" is available for everyone!? oh, and i bet u think student loans, govt grants, scholarships is socialist rite? you are making me think you are the reincarnation of joseph mcarthy more and more every time u postlowing wrote:
Not true, I have been laid off, I am just "lucky" enough to be marketable and have found other work. Responsibility for ones self and ones actions opens a lot of opportunity and choices. Far more than those offered by relying on the govt. for your daily bread.oug wrote:
You know it's weird. I can imagine an American getting away with a belief like that - namely that the only reason for being poor is one's lack of responsibility - something like 30 years ago. But today? It's like this economic crisis just never happened for you lowing! The American dream still going strong... Only slackers get laid off...
I have no debt except for my house, and I am in no danger of loosing it. I have been recalled back to my old job.
Sorry, I took the reins of my life, instead of letting the govt. lead me. I know, how dare me!!
Actually I am going apeshit because there is no way income redistribution is going to do anything to jump start our economy. Production, putting people to work is the only way to accomplish this.Braddock wrote:
You amaze me lowing... you go apeshit at the suggestion of money being spent within your own society on social programs but seem totally cool with billions being spent on waging war to help countries that you hate at the expense of American lives.lowing wrote:
Not surewhatcher talkin' about. I have always supported the war, and national defense. I have never supported a welfare state or socialism. WHere exactly is my inconsistency again?mikkel wrote:
Good god, this coming from the man who used to frequently comment on how Europe bailed on Iraqi reconstruction, and just as frequently moaned about how the US had to pick up the tab for everything. Now when you need to justify the spending, you suddenly owe them a stable country, and now it's your duty. Right.
To make a blanket statement justifying GOP spending as being for the sake of "national security", a term used time and time again to pass legislation undermining the constitution and the rights of citizens, you're coming off as what you repeatedly accuse every liberal you see of being - a sheep.
Your credibility is hovering just above zero right about now.
I'm not saying Obama's plans are fantastic (I don't know the ins and outs to be honest) but I'm willing to bet they are more fantastic than the Neo-Con dream of a democratic, Westernised Middle East. If you're going to waste money, waste it on yourself... not on a bunch of people who don't even like you that much.
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
Last edited by lowing (2009-01-28 22:01:38)
Liberal people and Islamic people.lowing wrote:
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
Got it.
Nope, liberal ideology and Islamic ideologyTheAussieReaper wrote:
Liberal people and Islamic people.lowing wrote:
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
Got it.
Now ya got it
I hate liberals =\= I hate liberal ideologylowing wrote:
Nope, liberal ideology and Islamic ideologyTheAussieReaper wrote:
Liberal people and Islamic people.lowing wrote:
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
Got it.
Now ya got it
Another failure in the covering-tracks department.lowing wrote:
Nope, liberal ideology and Islamic ideologyTheAussieReaper wrote:
Liberal people and Islamic people.lowing wrote:
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
Got it.
Now ya got it
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Correct again. Worrying about everyone is the government's job. What is your job as an active citizen however is to be aware of society's problems and of each party's policies and to direct your political activity accordingly.lowing wrote:
Nope, what I am saying is, worrying about everyone on top of what my responsibilities are, is not my job in life. I will take care of myself and my family and my responsibilities to them and you are free to do the same thing for yours. If you can't, the nwhat the fuck are you having kids for in the first place?
And I take it that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan takes care of production and putting people to work? Is that your plan to save the economy? Because I didn't see you object to that kind of spending...lowing wrote:
Actually I am going apeshit because there is no way income redistribution is going to do anything to jump start our economy. Production, putting people to work is the only way to accomplish this.
Last edited by oug (2009-01-28 22:44:52)
ƒ³
1. No, it is not the govts. job to "worry about everyone", it is the govts job to provide the freedom and security for all of us to take care of ourselves.oug wrote:
Correct again. Worrying about everyone is the government's job. What is your job as an active citizen however is to be aware of society's problems and of each party's policies and to direct your political activity accordingly.lowing wrote:
Nope, what I am saying is, worrying about everyone on top of what my responsibilities are, is not my job in life. I will take care of myself and my family and my responsibilities to them and you are free to do the same thing for yours. If you can't, the nwhat the fuck are you having kids for in the first place?And I take it that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan takes care of production and putting people to work? Is that your plan to save the economy? Because I didn't see you object to that kind of spending...lowing wrote:
Actually I am going apeshit because there is no way income redistribution is going to do anything to jump start our economy. Production, putting people to work is the only way to accomplish this.
2. Nope, I do not object to national defense and a strong military.
Is your plan for jump starting the economy really, redistributing peoples money from the earners to the non-earners?
Sorry you are left with the impression that I hate people for no other reason than for being people, that it isn't their ideology their behavior, their actions, that I judge.Spark wrote:
Another failure in the covering-tracks department.lowing wrote:
Nope, liberal ideology and Islamic ideologyTheAussieReaper wrote:
Liberal people and Islamic people.
Got it.
Now ya got it
Classic Lowing. Hates half the US population and a couple of Billion peace loving Muslims. That's a quote for the sig if I ever saw it.lowing wrote:
Oh and once again I am forced to remind you that I do not hate people, I hate liberals and Islam.
1. Not just freedom and security, but whatever is necessary for the well being of citizens. For example, if you remember that other thread we were talking about job losses and being marketable... Here's an example for you. I got a friend who works for Vodafone. You know what he told me yesterday? The company had to lay someone off so they made a fucking lottery and this woman from another store was the lucky winner! Booted just like that. No particular reason, it was just her lucky day. No excuses either! Just sent her home.lowing wrote:
1. No, it is not the govts. job to "worry about everyone", it is the govts job to provide the freedom and security for all of us to take care of ourselves.
2. Nope, I do not object to national defense and a strong military.
Is your plan for jump starting the economy really, redistributing peoples money from the earners to the non-earners?
Also a father of a friend: Worked for a private company for 20+ years. He was around 50 when they just fired him and hired a younger guy with less. Try being marketable at 50.
2. Funny how your national defense covers the entire world and yet when it comes to immigrants your boarders are with Mexico and Canada.
3. "Earners and non-earners" my ass. Rather haves and have-nots. Well my plan entails equality and rejects your inherent elitism. Thus its purpose is to minimize the aforementioned divisions.
Last edited by oug (2009-01-29 07:49:25)
ƒ³
1. Sorry disagree, it is not OUR govts. job to oversee the lives of its citizens. It is the govts. job to protect us and our freedoms.oug wrote:
1. Not just freedom and security, but whatever is necessary for the well being of citizens.lowing wrote:
1. No, it is not the govts. job to "worry about everyone", it is the govts job to provide the freedom and security for all of us to take care of ourselves.
2. Nope, I do not object to national defense and a strong military.
Is your plan for jump starting the economy really, redistributing peoples money from the earners to the non-earners?
2. Funny how your national defense covers the entire world and yet when it comes to immigrants your boarders are with Mexico and Canada.
3. "Earners and non-earners" my ass. Rather haves and have-nots. Well my plan entails equality and rejects your inherent elitism. Thus its purpose is to minimize the aforementioned divisions.
2. Lots of people want to hurt us. Please forgive us if we take the offense in that reality.
3. How exactly do you propose to maintain this fairness, and equality? does your plan involve anything other than wealth redistribution? How about rewarding success instead of failure? Any chance you will endorse that, over robbing achievement?
1. And how do you suppose they'll do that without overseeing?lowing wrote:
1. Sorry disagree, it is not OUR govts. job to oversee the lives of its citizens. It is the govts. job to protect us and our freedoms.
2. Lots of people want to hurt us. Please forgive us if we take the offense in that reality.
3. How exactly do you propose to maintain this fairness, and equality? does your plan involve anything other than wealth redistribution? How about rewarding success instead of failure? Any chance you will endorse that, over robbing achievement?
2. Right-o. I'd totally forgotten about that bearded guy living in the cave.
3. Redistribution has been around since you started paying taxes. What's happening right now is because of the emergency we're in. Which btw came about due to lack of control in the higher levels. It's fascinating how you're worried so much about your countrymen's freedom and yet you don't mind at all if they starve to death.
ƒ³
1. by up holding the constitution of the US. periodoug wrote:
1. And how do you suppose they'll do that without overseeing?lowing wrote:
1. Sorry disagree, it is not OUR govts. job to oversee the lives of its citizens. It is the govts. job to protect us and our freedoms.
2. Lots of people want to hurt us. Please forgive us if we take the offense in that reality.
3. How exactly do you propose to maintain this fairness, and equality? does your plan involve anything other than wealth redistribution? How about rewarding success instead of failure? Any chance you will endorse that, over robbing achievement?
2. Right-o. I'd totally forgotten about that bearded guy living in the cave.
3. Redistribution has been around since you started paying taxes. What's happening right now is because of the emergency we're in. Which btw came about due to lack of control in the higher levels. It's fascinating how you're worried so much about your countrymen's freedom and yet you don't mind at all if they starve to death.
2. I have n oidea why he is so hard t ofind when only a "few" Muslims support him. GO figure
3.I'm sorry, did I miss the headline where people in the US are now starving to death? Or does starving to death in America mean you can not afford the blackberry storm? If my govt is doing its job everyones freedom is secure, HOW people CHOOSE to exercise it is their business, not mine, unless it infringes on my freedom and rights
OP: I was against all the spending when the republicans where in charge, I was against the bailout last fall, and I'm against MOST of this bill. There are some things I like, like the tax cuts, but all this new spending on things other than infrastructure I don't like
The republicans are making the right choice by not supporting this bailout. This economic stimulus is a joke and won't make the economy any better... time will bring back consumer confidence and spending... this is just a chance for Peloser and Reid and co to see how much crap they can add to the bill... The first 350 billion is already out there, any change in the economic picture?
The argument that Bush spent to much during his 8 years... so it"s ok for Obama to spend even more makes no sense.
The argument that Bush spent to much during his 8 years... so it"s ok for Obama to spend even more makes no sense.
Love is the answer
Neocons are more liberal in monetary policy than Democrats.
sooner or later the inflation is gonna hit big timeMekstizzle wrote:
All I'm thinking is after all these bailouts and bills and wars and where the fuck is the money coming from.